Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2000 Jan 8;355(9198):129-34.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)06065-1.

Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable?

P C Gøtzsche et al. Lancet. .

Abstract

Background: A 1999 study found no decrease in breast-cancer mortality in Sweden, where screening has been recommended since 1985. We therefore reviewed the methodological quality of the mammography trials and an influential Swedish meta-analysis, and did a meta-analysis ourselves.

Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library for trials and asked the investigators for further details. Meta-analyses were done with Review Manager (version 4.0).

Findings: Baseline imbalances were shown for six of the eight identified trials, and inconsistencies in the number of women randomised were found in four. The two adequately randomised trials found no effect of screening on breast-cancer mortality (pooled relative risk 1.04 [95% CI 0.84-1.27]) or on total mortality (0.99 [0.94-1.05]). The pooled relative risk for breast-cancer mortality for the other trials was 0.75 (0.67-0.83), which was significantly different (p=0.005) from that for the unbiased trials. The Swedish meta-analysis showed a decrease in breast-cancer mortality but also an increase in total mortality (1.06 [1.04-1.08]); this increase disappeared after adjustment for an imbalance in age.

Interpretation: Screening for breast cancer with mammography is unjustified. If the Swedish trials are judged to be unbiased, the data show that for every 1000 women screened biennially throughout 12 years, one breast-cancer death is avoided whereas the total number of deaths is increased by six. If the Swedish trials (apart from the Malmö trial) are judged to be biased, there is no reliable evidence that screening decreases breast-cancer mortality.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

  • ACP J Club. 2000 Sep-Oct;133(2):67
  • Assessment of nationwide cancer-screening programmes.
    de Koning HJ. de Koning HJ. Lancet. 2000 Jan 8;355(9198):80-1. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00419-5. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10675158 No abstract available.
  • Screening mammography re-evaluated.
    Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Miller AB, et al. Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):747; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)00031-3. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10703818 No abstract available.
  • Screening mammography re-evaluated.
    Duffy SW, Tabar L. Duffy SW, et al. Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):747-8; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72152-8. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10703819 No abstract available.
  • Screening mammography re-evaluated.
    Moss S, Blanks R, Quinn MJ. Moss S, et al. Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):748; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)72153-x. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10703820 No abstract available.
  • Screening mammography re-evaluated.
    Nyström L. Nyström L. Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):748-9; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72154-1. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10703821 No abstract available.
  • Screening mammography re-evaluated.
    Hayes C, Fitzpatrick P, Daly L, Buttimer J. Hayes C, et al. Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):749; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72155-3. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10703822 No abstract available.
  • Screening mammography re-evaluated.
    Law M, Hackshaw A, Wald N. Law M, et al. Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):749-50; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72156-5. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10703823 No abstract available.
  • Screening mammography re-evaluated.
    Cates C, Senn S. Cates C, et al. Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):750; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72157-7. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10703824 No abstract available.
  • Screening mammography re-evaluated.
    Leung GM, Lam TH, Hedley AJ. Leung GM, et al. Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):750-1; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72158-9. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10703825 No abstract available.
  • Screening mammography re-evaluated.
    Baum M. Baum M. Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):751; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72159-0. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10703826 No abstract available.
  • Screening mammography re-evaluated.
    Rozenberg S, Liebens F, Ham H. Rozenberg S, et al. Lancet. 2000 Feb 26;355(9205):751-2; author reply 752. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)72160-7. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 10703827 No abstract available.
  • More on mammography.
    Wilcken N, Ghersi D, Brunswick C, Clarke M, Ganz P. Wilcken N, et al. Lancet. 2000 Oct 7;356(9237):1275-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)73880-0. Lancet. 2000. PMID: 11072975 No abstract available.
  • Screening for breast cancer with mammography.
    Lee JH, Zuckerman D. Lee JH, et al. Lancet. 2001 Dec 22-29;358(9299):2164-5; author reply 2167-8. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(01)07190-2. Lancet. 2001. PMID: 11784652 No abstract available.

Publication types